Tribunal Reverses Interest Add-Back, Adjusts Expenses for Assessment Years

HANSA DYEING & PRINTING WORKS. Versus INITAT BOMBAY-E COME TAX OFFICER (EIGHTH).

HANSA DYEING & PRINTING WORKS. Versus INITAT BOMBAY-E COME TAX OFFICER (EIGHTH). - TTJ 011, 301, Issues Involved:

1. Non-deduction of interest payments to partners under Section 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of motor car expenses and depreciation for non-business purposes.
3. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-deduction of Interest Payments to Partners under Section 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961:

The primary contention in the appeal for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 pertains to the non-deduction of interest payments made to partners as per Section 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961. The sums in question were paid to various partners in their individual capacities and as Kartas of their respective HUFs. The ITO held that interest paid to the HUF of Jyotindra and to Mohanlal, Chimanlal, and Bharat on their personal deposit accounts constituted payments to partners and thus could not be deducted. The ITO accordingly added back interest amounts of Rs. 20,923 for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs. 14,351 for the assessment year 1971-72.

The AAC upheld the ITO's decision, maintaining the interest add-back under Section 40(b). The assessee's counsel argued that only interest paid to partners on their personal investments should be disallowed under Section 40(b), not interest paid on deposits made in different capacities (e.g., as Karta of HUF). The Tribunal found that the cases cited by the Departmental Representative (A.S.K. Rathnaswamy Nadar Firm vs. CIT and Pannalal Gridharilal vs. CIT) were not directly applicable, as they dealt with salary payments, not interest on borrowed funds.

The Tribunal concluded that interest paid by the firm to partners in their individual capacities or as representatives of HUFs should not be disallowed under Section 40(b) when the funds were advanced from distinct and identifiable sources. They reasoned that disallowing such interest would lead to anomalies in taxation, as the interest income would be taxable in different hands depending on the capacity in which the funds were invested. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the authorities below and deleted the add-back of interest for both assessment years.

2. Disallowance of Motor Car Expenses and Depreciation for Non-Business Purposes:

For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee-firm objected to the disallowance of 1/4th of motor car expenses and depreciation on the grounds of non-business use. The AAC had limited the disallowance to 1/5th in the subsequent year. The Tribunal considered it reasonable to restrict the disallowance to 1/5th of the car expenses and depreciation for the year under consideration, aligning with the treatment in the subsequent year.

3. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses:

For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee-firm objected to the disallowance of Rs. 2,000 out of miscellaneous expenses totaling Rs. 17,000. The Tribunal noted that a similar disallowance of Rs. 2,000 had been made in the previous year under similar circumstances. They found the disallowed amount to be reasonable and decided that no interference was warranted in this regard.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed to the extent indicated, with the Tribunal reversing the interest add-back under Section 40(b) for both assessment years and adjusting the disallowance of motor car expenses and depreciation to 1/5th for the assessment year 1970-71. The disallowance of Rs. 2,000 out of miscellaneous expenses for the assessment year 1971-72 was upheld.